General comment on draft-ietf-problem-statement-00.txt

[Margaret Wasserman]

I would bet, though, that the advisor gets to be present when the
work that he submits is reviewed by the committee...  [Tell me
if I'm wrong, as I'm not very academically-aware.]

Sometimes, I think it would help if WG chairs were included in more
of the IESG discussions.

It might be particularly useful for WG chairs to be included in the
discussion of WG charters and re-charters and/or documents submitted
by their WG.

Within companies that I've worked at, the managers responsible for
producing the work were always present during project review and
acceptance meetings, etc.

Margaret


At 09:55 AM 3/4/2003 -0500, Mark Allman wrote:

> > indeed.  so how do we get wgs to produce production-quality output
> > and get production-quality ietf last call review?
>
>The analogy I have made before and I like is that you treat
>documents as a university does a thesis.  The WG (student) produces
>it and the WG chair (advisor) ensures that it is baked and ready
>before passing it along to the IESG (committee).  If the committee
>does not sign it then both the WG and **more importantly the WG
>chair** failed to do his/her job.  WG chairs with high failure rates
>get replaced -- and in a somewhat objective fashion (not "we don't
>feel you're doing a good job", but "three quarters of the stuff you
>send is not ready, sorry, but the iesg doesn't have time for that
>kind of failure rate").
>
>allman
>
>
>--
>Mark Allman -- BBN/NASA GRC -- http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~mallman/
>
>